Reply to "Comments on 'Rethinking the lower bound on aerosol radiative forcing'"

Abstract

This reply addresses a comment questioning one of the lines of evidence I used in a 2015 study (S15) to argue for a less negative aerosol radiative forcing. The comment raises four points of criticism. Two of these have been raised and addressed elsewhere; here I additionally show that even if they have merit the S15 lower bound remains substantially (0.5 W m-2) less negative than that given in the AR5. Regarding the two other points of criticism, one appears to be based on a poor understanding of the nature of S15's argument; the other rests on speculation as to the nature of the uncertainty in historical SO2 estimates. In the spirit of finding possible flaws with the top-down constraints from S15, I instead hypothesize that an interesting-albeit unlikely-way S15 could be wrong is by inappropriately discounting the contribution of biomass burning to radiative forcing through aerosol-cloud interactions. This hypothesis is interesting as it opens the door for a role for the anthropogenic (biomass) aerosol in causing the Little Ice Age and again raises the specter of greater warming from ongoing reductions in SO2 emissions.